Have Your Say: How Many HOBBIT Films Do You Want?

Associate Editor, Features; Rotterdam, The Netherlands (@ardvark23)
to Vote
Have Your Say: How Many HOBBIT Films Do You Want?
Peter Jackson can be quite the joker sometimes. Therefore his comments at ComicCon last week about maybe maybe making three movies out of "The Hobbit" rather than two should perhaps be taken with a grain of salt, or just be seen as a manner to convey his enthusiasm concerning the material he has shot.

Of course the many social networks on the Internet are now bustling with yeas and noes. The novel was never as sprawling as any of the three volumes making up "Lord o/t Rings", so creating two films already seems like stretching the content a wee bit.

Then again, Tolkien's style of writing for "The Hobbit" differs a lot from the one he used in his illustrious sequels, painting everything in broad strokes rather than finelining each little detail. A case could be made that you can actually have more fun doing some worldbuilding based on "The Hobbit" than with "Lord o/t Rings", as you'd be filling the gaps rather than trying desperately to not trip over your own shoelaces.

So HAVE YOUR SAY: would you want the tale of "The Hobbit" shown in one, two, three movies, or none at all?
to Vote
Screen Anarchy logo
Do you feel this content is inappropriate or infringes upon your rights? Click here to report it, or see our DMCA policy.

More about The Hobbit

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawkjHh5lR5lIKNg3IzZ5xmD0nnIvURdeVrkJuly 25, 2012 8:32 AM

I was suprised he needed two movies to tell The Hobbit. Bilbo goes on an adventure, comes across the ring, fights a dragon, watches a bigger fight, gets some gold, goes home. The End. Though I have faith in Jackson after wonderfull work done with Tolkiens LOTR material.

theshape31July 25, 2012 8:55 AM

Much less happens in The Hobbit than any of the LOTR books, so I see no creative reason there should be more than 1 movie... only corporate and marketing reasons ($$$).

Tom StoneJuly 25, 2012 9:27 AM

Why shorten "of the" to "o/t"? The title's not exactly The Assassination of Jesse James or anything.

Ard VijnJuly 25, 2012 10:25 AM

Because I'm lazy but not lazy enough to use LOTR.

Ard VijnJuly 25, 2012 12:24 PM

And as for shortening: it's The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Fo...
Waitasecond? YOU TRICKED ME!

hutchJuly 25, 2012 12:27 PM

3. Bring back Viggo and have Strider and Gandalf tracking Gollum down.

Tom StoneJuly 25, 2012 1:58 PM


Mr. KhanJuly 25, 2012 3:04 PM

When I heard about the extending to 2 I was surprised and then 3 really shocked me, but when I think about it and see that it is Peter Jackson himself who is so enthusiatic about going to film 2 more months, that alleviates any worries. In fact it makes me really happy to see the guy who at one point didn't want to film any more Tolkien be so gung-ho about this extension. I'm happy if he's happy, he already gave me one great trilogy, so if he wants to try another, I'm all for it!

Todd BrownJuly 25, 2012 3:17 PM

They already had to create a lot of material for the second Hobbit film. If they're doing a third it's going to be pretty much entirely new material. Not crazy about that. If they're going to do it Jackson's the right guy, but it's not like he isn't prone to bloat when given free rein (hello, King Kong) so I'm a little nervous that he's continuing to add and add and add material here ...

Mr. CavinJuly 25, 2012 4:31 PM

I think that trying to jam too much LORD OF THE RINGS prequel nonsense into THE HOBBIT will sort of ruin the latter's more whimsical and folkloric tone. I assume this is battle that is already totally lost, but I'd prefer less of that sort of thing and more of the simple, straightforward, unencumbered adventure story that made the book so likeable in the first place. The trilogy is a wonder of heroic mythmaking--and together with the Silmarillion more of a work of architecture than a mere story. In that way it is mighty and academic, but the wonder and fun get somewhat relegated to the sidelines. The Hobbit, on the other hand, is less didactic and a lot more fun. So in a perfect world I'd get one movie; but maybe a long one?

Tom StoneJuly 25, 2012 5:41 PM

I've heard from a source on set that he's dropped action beats on the spot, to be overheard saying, "we'll just do that in CG". That's what's making me nervous, coupled with the fact that all the promo shots so far have been photoshopped to blazes. You need to worry when smoothing up images becomes de rigueur.

Niels MatthijsJuly 25, 2012 5:46 PM

Every Hobbit film is one too many, especially when Jackson is involved. The man is capable of so much more than these boring Tolkien adaptations.

Mr. KhanJuly 25, 2012 7:37 PM

When you say creating, do you mean adding material that he himself is coming up with or adding more Tolkien stuff that just isn't in the Hobbit specifically? If it's all Peter Jackson's stuff that does seem silly, if not I think I'm all for it. But who knows, I think I'm just trying to be optimistic. None of the footage so far had done much for me until I saw the trailer in IMAX before TDKR

zetobeltJuly 25, 2012 10:14 PM


ragedaddy72July 26, 2012 10:45 AM

I agree Niels, this is nothing but middle earth overkill! Yes Jacskon is a masterful filmmaker, but this is a bit too much. And how come all the people of middle earth have to be white?why not use some of these New Zealand born great actors of Maori descent like Cliff Curtis or Temuera Morrison to portray some of these characters in middle earth?this is getting tiresome, thank god for directors like Del Toro, Cameron, K Branagh and George Lucas who aren't afraid to put other ethnicities in their mythical/fantasy worlds.

hutchJuly 26, 2012 11:23 AM

Lucas and Cameron? You're kidding right? Dances with Smurfs and Jar Jar Binks keep the status quo of heroic, bland, white dudes.

There's no ethnicities in LOTR and TH because there aren't any in the books-unless you count the many different races Tolkien created and had either clashing or working together. Read the books?

Todd BrownJuly 26, 2012 2:30 PM

What they've been talking about publicly is extrapolating from things found in the appendices. And they've created at least one character from scratch.

Ard VijnJuly 26, 2012 2:36 PM

Did you two know that nearly all of the Uruk-Hai orcs in LOTR were played by real maori warriors? Hence the stocky, powerful build of those guys.

But no, that does not solve any ethnicity issues either.

hutchJuly 26, 2012 3:56 PM

What ethnicity issues? The story doesn't have any women in it either. So they felt the need to create a female character from scratch-which pisses me off. So what now? Every demographic has to have a representative in the story? It's corny arguments like that which give liberals a bad name.

Not every story includes everyone all the time. I'm 100% against whitewashing art, but I doubt a story trying to tell a mythic pre-history of a geographically white location is the place to put the crosshairs on for 'ethnic issues'.

If you want to make a real start on the issue take aim at the thousands of indie flicks starring middle class whites. Those are the films that make it seem as if the world revolves around whites. Goblins and Hobbits, not so much.

Tom StoneJuly 26, 2012 4:34 PM

Maybe they'll find room for Tom Bombadil and Goldberry. Billy Crystal and Carol Kane would be genius casting. Ha ha.

ragedaddy72July 26, 2012 9:08 PM

I get your point hutch, but it still doesn't hold up when certain directors that are adapting from novels, comics or extraordinary literature as Tolkiens, they can make changes to certain character's ethnicity without it damaging the concept of the story. Look at all the backlash created when Branah put Idris Elba as the big H in Thor, see how that turned out?fine! And the asian actor also... Lucas had Sam Jackson as well as Billy Dee in the Star Wars trilogies. Who cares about indie flicks starring white middle class, because every ethnicity can make their own indie flicks about their own people because it's rather cheap to do with all the high tech cameras that are available. I'm talking about big budget productions and the absence of ethnicity from middle earth. I wouldn't be suprised if Del Toro had some creative differences with Jackson over this, because Del Toro is another director that doesn't mind including other races as key characters in his films.

hutchJuly 27, 2012 9:46 PM

Sorry, dude or dudette. Tolkien was writing about England's mythic prehistory. Switching up to add ethnic characters would be totally distracting. Would be like adding black actors to a story about Vikings. Say what? Some stories just don't deal with certain demographics. There's nothing to cry about. Living in an overly PC world is.

Tolkien's world is different. Anyone who has read his work knows what I mean. You don't go changing shit. I'm already mad at PJ for adding a female elf warrior that never existed in the story for the sake of demographic market share.

As for indie films, my point is, we all wanna pat ourselves on the back for being so multi-cultured nowadays, yet we don't bat an eye at the umpteenth indie white people romp, but are sitting around complaining about why a story about Goblins doesn't have ethnic people in it. Ha. I, mean really, which film should we be complaining about over lack of ethnicities? Shouldn't the film based on a story from the previous century reflect where people's heads were at during that time, while the stories of today should reflect our newfound 'multiethnic' society? You're asking for the reverse and I can't see why.

Anyway, I wanted George Takei to voice the dragon in the Hobbit films, but whatever.

https://www.google.com/accounts/o8/id?id=AItOawk8vNE9nYy75z71sZk_qQLKmt5eMKYOzykAugust 5, 2012 5:15 PM

Pretty much this.

More tedious bollocks, from a tedious as fuck film maker.